Humans the weapons of choice in new type of war

EMANUELE OTTOLENGHI

Published 5:30 am, Thursday, June 20, 2002

In the last decade, terrorism proved to be an effective strategy.

Many argue that terrorism is the result of desperation. Hence, the only way to respond is to address its "root causes." By doing so, they are portraying terrorism as the regrettable, reprehensible outrage produced by an otherwise legitimate grievance. Desperation often produces desperate acts. Suicide bombings seem to confirm this. But to presume that terrorism stems from desperation is misleading: Suicide bombers are recruited, indoctrinated, supplied with explosives, sent on a mission and delivered to target -- in short, supported all the way -- by a network of people who are alive and well and who plan to stay alive and reap the benefits of these only apparently suicidal actions.

As such, terrorism is neither the act nor the product of desperation performed by the lone madman, but an effective tactical weapon that maximizes the military objectives of a mission, where the human being who carries out the operation is part of the weapon system. As a sentient missile that is highly versatile, not affected by adverse weather conditions or rough terrain, suicide bombers are smart weapons of the poor. As low-tech, low-cost weapons, they are weapons of choice, not of necessity. That is why it is time to understand terrorism for what it truly is -- a new kind of warfare -- for only such clarity will produce effective responses.

Consider its nature: Carried out by warriors disguised as civilians, it targets civilians by means of "civilian" weapons -- cars, trucks, airliners.

Nothing of this new type of warfare involves the distinction between governments, armies and people the current international order is based on. Attacks are planned by organizations and warlords who hide behind and mix with civilian populations; who, while operating within a state territory, openly challenge its authority and act in disregard of it; who are not bound by international laws; who do not target armies but their innocent civilian populations; who do not aim to overcome the enemy but to defeat its will to fight and impose concessions and capitulation by destroying its morale rather than its infrastructure and military capability.

This is not desperation. It is a strategy.

It is the by-product of a new world (dis)order produced by the end of the Cold War and globalization.

Economically, the post Cold War order is based on an open world characterized by relatively peaceful relations where disputes should be addressed in international forums and overcome through negotiations. Free-market economy, openness, the global village and the Internet revolution are its trademarks. Politically, it is beset by the political disintegration of the old order and the revival of old ethnic animosities and ancient religious hatreds.

Today, conventional wars are too costly and too brutal to be acceptable "continuations of diplomacy by other means." Most states accept this, albeit sometimes grudgingly. Most of the time, the technological gap existing between modern high-tech armies in the West and armies in the developing world make conventional war too costly and its outcome predetermined. On the other hand, economic disruption is such that conflicts are undesirable, even for those nations that are most likely to win them. Fighting in this new environment demands new techniques that exploit its weaknesses -- openness and reluctance to fight. For weak, nonstate actors, terrorism is the best available strategy to mount a challenge.

They use the environment, inter-connectedness and accessibility of the global world to exploit the military and political asymmetry to their advantage. They thrive on the explosion of tribalism unleashed by the end of the Cold War and on the discontent produced by globalization. They therefore develop and use nonconventional means of war aimed at exploiting the weaknesses and limitations of a stronger opponent.

Their aim is not to conquer enemy's territory or to defeat it on the battlefield, but rather to wear down the enemy and break its will to fight.

The strategy of terror is therefore low-intensity conflict fought over a long period and mostly far away from battlefields, focusing on civilian aspects of life and being dependent on highly decentralized operatives often acting entirely on their own deep inside enemy territory, and relying on a vast network of support across the globe, both human and financial.

This kind of low-intensity conflict involving nonstate actors was already predominant in the last decade. It will become the only type of warfare threatening the Western world in the 21st century.

Terrorism is an instrument of war, a war of an entirely new kind. Fighting it must be kept distinct from the political objectives terrorism portends to promote. It is an unconventional weapon of choice, used for diverse and not necessarily connected purposes, which so far is stronger and more lethal than Western arsenals, opulence and freedoms. Only by recognizing it as a threat to the open and free world we live in, not an extreme way to promote freedom and justice, can the West meet the challenge posed by terrorists.

Ottolenghi is a junior research fellow in Israel Studies, St. Antony's College, Oxford University.